TexasCHLforum.com

RoyGBiv wrote:

VMI77 wrote:I don't understand why so many gun owners are willing to concede their right to bear arms under a theoretical concept of property rights that doesn't exist in America.

....a matter of political compromise necessary to get concealed carry passed.

You asked... then you answered. It's a valid question and a realistic answer.

Honestly, I don't have a lick of problem with private property owners posting 30.06. It's THEIR castle, even if they open it to the public for business. I can choose to do business elsewhere. I also think private property owners should have the right to post their property "Whites only" or "No Jews" or... whatever. I can choose not to do business with them either.

The only time this becomes a problem requiring government intervention is if there is something I am REQUIRED to do that "forces" me to do business with such a private establishment... For example if L1 posted a "White's Only" sign when L1 is the only place I can go for CHL fingerprints...

I essentially agree with you. I took some short cuts in my post so I didn't make the point I was trying to make completely clear. I don't have a problem with the compromise that was made --30.06 signs-- to get concealed carry passed. It's a reasonable compromise and I simply don't do business with anyone who posts such signs. As it it, it has worked out pretty well because I hardly ever see 30.06 signs.

I was attempting to say that treating the question of a property owner prohibiting concealed carry as if it is strictly a matter of principle....the principle that a property owner can set all terms for the use of his property....is the application of theory/philosophy over reality. If theory matched reality it would make sense for gun owners to respect the concept that a property owner can prohibit concealed carry since adhering to principle would also ultimately be one of the best protectors of their own rights. However, the rights of property owners are abridged for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with actual rights, so it doesn't make sense to me as a gun owner, with an actual right articulated in the Constitution, to accept abridgement of my right when property owner rights are abridged to satisfy the mere desires of others, or for social and political reasons that are not actual rights recognized in the Constitution.

In other words, I see no reason to just accept that in a negotiation for balancing competing rights, gun owners should concede an actual Constitutional right a priori when concessions are made to others for strictly political reasons that mostly originate from the philosophy of collectivism. Now, as a matter of practical reality, yes, 30.06 was probably necessary to get concealed carry passed, and in the existing political climate it is a concession that makes sense. I still don't think I'm explaining myself very well, but I hope I'm little closer to conveying what I mean than in my previous post.

apostate wrote:

dac1842 wrote:4- I would send the corporate office a letter and let ask them what measures are they are taking to guarantee your safety. Let them know the hours you leave and return so that your personal body guard they must be providing for you is in place at the appointed times. I would also inquire as to where they plan on placing the guard shack that they must be placing in front of each apartment to insure that no apartment is burglarized.
5- Put them on notice that if any harm comes to you, your family or your guest while on the property that you could have prevented by being armed you will be suing them for failure to provide a safe and secure place to reside.
6- Ask them if they are familiar with the second amendment and what legal right do they have to deny you your constitutional rights.

How is this different than an employer not allowing you to carry at work?

Alternately, consider any business other than an apartment complex posting a 30.06 sign. Does that violate your constitutional rights?

Yes it does, if you look at it in terms of how the law actually works, instead of how it would work in theory if the Constitution was absolutely adhered to. Can a business post a sign that says "Whites Only" and prevent other races from entering? If Constitutional protection was absolute a business could do that, and in fact, businesses used to do just that. So, property owners don't really have the right to control their property as they see fit, especially those that open their property to the public --there is a social accommodation and adjustments to property rights are made that aren't strictly in accordance with more absolute rights described by the Constitution. The 2nd amendment says you have a RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms, so in the same way a business with a "Whites Only" sign is denying people who aren't White a "constitutional right," a 30.06 sign is denying a "constitutional right."

I don't understand why so many gun owners are willing to concede their right to bear arms under a theoretical concept of property rights that doesn't exist in America. Property owners already don't have absolute rights or control over their property, again, especially those who open their property to the public. So why give up your rights to satisfy a hypothetical concept that exists in theory but not in practice? That said, the law does allow property owners to prohibit concealed carry, but it's much less an issue of principle than a matter of political compromise necessary to get concealed carry passed. The fact is, the law abridges many property rights, so why are gun owners content to let the line be drawn where it prevents the exercise of their right to bear arms? I don't carry where it is prohibited by law, and don't do business with any establishment that has a 30.06 sign or a gunbuster sign of any kind. However, if the law didn't allow public businesses to deny entry to CHL holders, I wouldn't have any concern that property rights were abridged for business owners because of it.